Introduction toThe Campbell Collaboration and potential for collaboration with a Cochrane PH Review Group

Arild Bjørndal & Julia Littell

Introduction: Arild Bjørndal

Co-chair, Campbell Collaboration (C2) Steering Group

Co-chair, C2 Social Welfare Coordinating Group

Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Olso, NO

Introduction: Julia Littell

Member, C2 Steering Group

Co-chair & Coordinating Editor, C2 Social Welfare Coordinating Group

Professor, Bryn Mawr College, Graduate School of Social Work & Social Research, PA, USA

Overview of Presentation

Intro to C2 History, goals, organization, directions

Steps in the C2 review & editorial processes Similarities and differences from Cochrane

Options for collaboration 3 options with examples

Brief history of C2

Since 1999 meeting in London C2 modeled on Cochrane (C1) produces systematic reviews in fields of social

care shares Cochrane’s goals, values, and principles:

Collaboration, independence, high quality, teamwork, diversity, avoid unnecessary duplication of effort

C2 holds annual colloquium

C2 Organization

Non-profit/charity International steering group (SG)

Overlaps with Cochrane SG C2 Secretariat Office now in Oslo, NO 5 Coordinating groups

Methods – has multiple subgroups, some co-registered with Cochrane

Users Group 3 Substantive Coordinating (Review) Groups

C2 Non Profit Corporation

Policy-Makers Practitioners The Public Intermediary Organizations

Academia/Researchers

Campbell Users’ Group

The

Cam

pbel

l Lib

raryMethods

Co-ordinatingGroup

EducationCo-ordinating

Group

Crime & JusticeCo-ordinating

Group

Social WelfareCo-ordinating

Group

C2 Regional Centers

C2 Steering Group

Secretariat

C2 Structure

Substantive Topics

Education

Crime & Justice

Social Welfare

Public health interventions exist within these sectors, hence collaboration is logical

Strategic directions

C2 Library is currently online at www.campbellcollaboration.org Contains register of trials in social care (C2-SPECTR) and

database of C2 systematic reviews (C2-RIPE) C2 in negotiation with publishers Results will have implications for co-registration/co-

publication of reviews with Cochrane Organizational development

Have three broad coordinating groups May need larger number of review groups with specific foci

Governance model becoming more like Cochrane Democratic, open

C2 Review process

Process and requirements similar to Cochrane:

Title registration form Protocol Completed review

Resources for review authors

Cochrane Handbook C2 protocol guidelines, available from

www.campbellcollaboration.org C2 methods policy briefs

Available on web Updating these so that they can serve as

addendum to Cochrane Handbook, clarify any differences between C1 and C2

Protocol development: Software

Cochrane’s Review Manager (RevMan) Preferred for C2 Social Welfare reviews Required for co-registered (C1/C2) reviews Paste in tables and graphs from other programs

(e.g., CMA) as needed Other formats are possible for C2-only

protocols and reviews E.g., Crime & Justic Group prefers Word

Protocol development: Content

Requirements parallel to Cochrane Emphasis on logic and transparency

rationale for decisions, e.g., study designs included/excluded

plans for subgroup and moderator analysis

How C2 process differs from Cochrane C2 has one Methods group that provides advice

on all protocols and reviews Methods advice is vetted (can be over-ruled) by

substantive Group Editors C2 encourages authors to look at study design as

possible moderator (when possible) RCTs are preferred in reviews of intervention effects,

but not required Results of RCTs are presented separately from non-

RCTs in at least one table C2 encourages use of meta-analysis, following

reasonable plan developed in protocol

Potential Collaboration with a Cochrane Public Health CRG

Three options

1. Consultation only

2. Co-register/co-publish selected titles

3. Co-register CRG entity

Option 1: Consultation only – informal relationship between C2 and Cochrane PH CRG

Share contacts (e.g., external readers) between groups

Obtain input from methods/statistics experts in other groups

Obtain advice on editorial decisions from editors in other groups

Help assemble review teams with good mix of substantive and methodological skills

Option 2: Co-register titles

Two models1. Cochrane and Campbell groups create a joint editorial

process for purposes of a particular review Coordinate use of substantive external readers (1 from each

group?) Obtain critiques from C1 statistician and C2 methods Requires careful coordination of timing and documents Need editorial approval in both groups

2. One group takes responsibility for editorial process Other groups may adopt or reject products when finished Saves authors from having to go through two separate editorial

processes

Co-registered titles: examples Title on mass media interventions for healthcare

utilization Co-registered in C1 EPOC and C2 Social Welfare Went through EPOC first Went through expedited editorial process in C2 Social Welfare Extra iterations, but authors benefited from additional feedback

Title on early childhood education in C2 Education group and joint C1/C2 Developmental,

Psychosocial, and Learning Problems Group One group will take editorial responsibility

Title co-registered in all 3 Campbell review groups One group takes the lead Other 2 adopt/reject products

Option 3: Co-register CRG Requires proposal approved by Cochrane & Campbell SGs

Modeled on existing co-registered CRG: Developmental, Psychosocial, & Learning Problems (DPLP)

DPLP produces titles, protocols, and reviews that are registered in both collaborations

Single, streamlined editorial process meets requirements of both Cochrane and Campbell

Editorial process includes: Editor, RGC, TSC, 2 substantive external readers, Cochrane statistician, + the Campbell Methods Group

Issues of co-registration (of reviews or entity)

Advantages:

More diverse, inter-disciplinary substantive expertise available to authors

Bridges some statistical/methodological traditions, opportunities to use the best of both

Reviews reach wider audience, spanning fields of health care and social care Brings readers into both Cochrane and Campbell Libraries

Creates new opportunities for learning for Cochrane and Campbell editors, statisticians, reviewers, etc.

Issues of co-registration (continued)

Disadvantages:

Working across two organizations, with somewhat different cultures

Process more time consuming (for authors, with delays in publication, and for RGCs and editors) unless CRG is co-registered

Next steps

Please let us know … What you think What questions you have for us How we can help

Arild Bjørndal arb@kunnskapssenteret.no Julia Littell jlittell@brynmawr.edu www.campbellcollaboration.org

29 August 2007